Public acceptance of evolution

[wooffy]

it's quite scary.

and from 2005.

anyone got something more recent?

Seeing that, I think we need to re-define terms like "3rd work nation".

What REALLY frightens me about that chart is the influence the US has the on the world.

 

[G-Lexington]

A better question - has the US figure been growing or shrinking as of late?

Lex

 

[MercuryJones]

Who is the injured party in this situation?

Our nation, in which proper science can scarcely be taught.

 

[bankside]

Who is the injured party in this situation?

Humanity.
The heirs of the Enlightenment.
Anyone with a care for knowledge.

 

[wooffy]

Humanity.
The heirs of the Enlightenment.
Anyone with a care for knowledge.

Everyone who is alive, or will live in the future - because these same idiots, through elections and more direct means, who influence public policy. That chart (if accurate), tells me that 60% of Americans are too dumb to be trusted to make any decisions at all. I really hope that chart is wrong.

 

[Telstra]

Acceptance of Evolution by Religion:

Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%
Muslim 45%
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witness 8%

interesting, non desert religion is less obstructive ...

 

[freefall]

it's quite scary.[/IMG]

The accepting or the retarding?

But personally, there are as many scientific proofs against evolution as there is supporting it. The only thing we're waiting is the Missing Link and voila, everything is illuminated

Call me indecisive, but I bend toward where the science goes

 

[Passels]

The accepting or the retarding?

But personally, there are as many scientific proofs against evolution as there is supporting it. The only thing we're waiting is the Missing Link and voila, everything is illuminated

Call me indecisive, but I bend toward where the science goes

What on earth is the Missing Link?

 

[MercuryJones]

But personally, there are as many scientific proofs against evolution as there is supporting it.

What "scientific proofs against evolution" would those be?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Acceptance of Evolution by Religion:

Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%
Muslim 45%
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witness 8%

What a moronic taxonomy.

 

[Passels]

I read a book a few years ago about creationism vs. evolution...

And what intrigued me the MOST was that it really takes FAITH in either belief...

With that it mind, one belief offers redemption and the other one doesn't...

Until science can COMPLETELY PROVE evolution -- the results above don't really surprise me; nor, do they trouble me...

That must have been a bad book.

Also, there are literally thousands of faiths and sects proclaiming to be the one 'Truth'. It's just as likely you'll burn forever along with almost everyone else on the planet who didn't cozy up to the right deity.

 

[freefall]

What on earth is the Missing Link?

Here.

What "scientific proofs against evolution" would those be?

If there were proofs against evolution by process of natural selection, the scientific community would throw the whole thing out the window...that's what science does. There's no proof against it...in some people's mind science needs to be absolute and visible whereas the deities they worship remain elusive and entirely fact-less.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Even though it's a site created by Creationism people (I gave up on searching sources which doesn't mention creationism or Christian or not one-sided), surprisingly, this one is quite neutral because it highlights issues from evolutionism and creationism and slays/supports them accordingly to the scientific proofs. The claims inside are backed up with scientific papers (you can see at the citations).

Skip the beginning and surge directly into the science part: biology, paenthology, geology, astronomy, etc. This are a good site.

 

[Passels]

Yeah, I see a Wikipedia article for 'transitional fossils' and a bunch of popular misconceptions of what they entail from the media and the near-illiterate. There is no such thing as a 'Missing Link'.

 

[nguypete]

The accepting or the retarding?

But personally, there are as many scientific proofs against evolution as there is supporting it. The only thing we're waiting is the Missing Link and voila, everything is illuminated

Call me indecisive, but I bend toward where the science goes

Like what?

I suggest you watch this:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Never-Knew-n/dp/B0031SZER2"]Amazon.com: What Darwin Never Knew: n/a, Paula S. Apsell;Lisa Mirowitz: Movies & TV[/ame]

 

[fetaby]

There is no such thing as a 'Missing Link'.

How unscientific of you....

There may or may not be a 'Missing Link.'

 

[MercuryJones]

Even though it's a site created by Creationism people (I gave up on searching sources which doesn't mention creationism or Christian or not one-sided), surprisingly, this one is quite neutral because it highlights issues from evolutionism and creationism and slays/supports them accordingly to the scientific proofs. The claims inside are backed up with scientific papers (you can see at the citations).

You say "I bend toward where the science goes", but talking about "the missing link" just demonstrates how far from science you are on this.

There really is no body of reputable scientists who claim evolution is disproved in any way. It is the basis of the entire science of biology.

 

[freefall]

Like what?

I suggest you watch this:
Amazon.com: What Darwin Never Knew: n/a, Paula S. Apsell;Lisa Mirowitz: Movies & TV

Read my post above (#38)

 

[nguypete]

Here.





http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Even though it's a site created by Creationism people (I gave up on searching sources which doesn't mention creationism or Christian or not one-sided), surprisingly, this one is quite neutral because it highlights issues from evolutionism and creationism and slays/supports them accordingly to the scientific proofs. The claims inside are backed up with scientific papers (you can see at the citations).

Skip the beginning and surge directly into the science part: biology, paenthology, geology, astronomy, etc. This are a good site.

Half of those have already been explained. Some of them haven't, but just because it hasn't been explained yet doesn't mean evolution isn't real?

We couldn't explain weather 100 years ago? Was it God?

Please, and some of those sources are from 1994? Really?

Here's a very generic explanation on the human eye:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

And read this for shits and giggles.
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/


Edit: I'm a science major too. I've taken Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Cellular & Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Anatomy & Human Physiology, and Biochemistry -- all of which support evolution.

Hello? Drug resistant bacteria? Does that ring a bell?

And intelligent design is bullshit, like the above article stated with blood flow over our retinas -- does God make mistakes?

 

[MercuryJones]

Half of those have already been explained. Some of them haven't, but just because it hasn't been explained yet doesn't mean evolution isn't real?

...

Please, and some of those sources are from 1994? Really?[/url]

There's also nothing there that "slays" evolution. There are silly creationist claims, and responses.

The site FAQ evens includes the following:

"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

The archive doesn't support creationism.

 

[freefall]

I'm familiar with talkorigins, but it's not where science is.

You say "I bend toward where the science goes", but talking about "the missing link" just demonstrates how far from science you are on this.

There really is no body of reputable scientists who claim evolution is disproved in any way. It is the basis of the entire science of biology.

The missing link is but one of the keys to the evolution theory since those who are disapproving evolutionism is attacking the scientists in this point, saying unless the missing links are found and are not hoax, then the evolution is wrong. That is my point.

And once again, I'm just saying that science is changing. Anything can happen. What was once wrong can be correct and oppositely, what was correct can be wrong. So is the same with evolution theory; it can be destructed or it can stand until the end of time, albeit the chances are bigger for it to maintain its position. There are no guessing here.

And yes, it's science in there. There are citations and that is enough to withstand. I've checked some of the papers and the abstracts are mostly present. You can try them.